02:33 - VIGJust sayin' I remember nikarg's Sodom review on the front page, that album was like 30 years old

02:27 - ScreamingSteelUSTechnically, Che's Manunkind review was too old to be featured on the front page. That was a special exception; usually, we prefer to keep our reviews within three-to-four months, with six months as an absolute cutoff.

02:14 - VIG@Radu Of course! I don't think it's too old to be featured on the front page. Look at Che's Manunkind review

00:09 - RaduPPublished a review for an album that's a bit too old to be featured on the front page, but you guys will read it, right? [link]

Original post

new thread, this time with more specific options(guess these options pretty much cover it all). please explain why you chose one of them. i do download, but i am exempt from all you purist's accusations, because (unlike people in wealthier countries!) i really cannot afford any cd most of the times, and i'm short of money usually, i'd be broke all the time if i wanted to buy all the downloaded stuff i have. so (yes, it's true, that's the only album i own) the one album in my collection is really the only metal album i have in my house(apart maybe for my dad's Queen vinyls but that's another story), it's a remastered edition which i got for a small price relative to the rest of the albums' prices, about 10$. but the rest of Priest's catalogue are either the same price or higher, so it would cost me around 150-200$ to get their entire discography. that's about half the normal salary...

See, that's the point. Long run changes won't happen overnight. I feel a lot more guilt owning a physical cd than LEGALLY downloading music, such as using bandcamp and the like. Why? CDs/vinyls involve using resources that could've been utilized in more urgent settings. Just an example, maybe crude but still; paper is needed for the artwork which involves cutting down trees. So I would feel a lot more guilt being responsible indirectly for the destruction of trees than owning an illegal/legal download.

But yeah, I definitely see where you're coming from coz I've been through the dilemma. I also suffered (to some extent, still do) from the "collector's value syndrome", and I used to spend a good chunk of money collecting cds, be it music, games, etc. (the irony here is that these cds were all pirated, but I hope you see my point) It's not that I won't spend money on intellectual property IF I have the option. Of course I will. But just like you concluded, the bandcamp/itune stone/spotify format is where it's at in the long run. Especially considering that music is a durable consumer good and the main satisfaction that we gain from it is from listening, not owning it in a physical form.

Would also like to add that downloading per se shouldn't be stigmatized. Not at all. If anything, it's done more good than bad in the grand scheme of things. All we need to do is make sure it's monitored in a way that'll be beneficial for both consumers and artists. Outright stopping it will always be a step backwards from hereon in. It's like you have a whole set of advanced surgical instruments, but you still cling on to gouging out eyeballs with a spoon.

I don't put that much thought into how much damage physical music production is doing to the world's resources. It still generates more money for the band than buying it off itunes, and plus: packaging is still going to be used for numerous other things that will kill the trees. So I would never go so far as to say i feel guilty for buying a CD.

See that's another reason why I see having physical copies as a bit of a waste: I'm not a collector! I don't think it's productive or healthy to become so attached to material possessions. There are some people out there who buy different versions of the same album just for something as trivial as a matrix code or a different design on the CD! To me, that's nuts. I listen to music for the music, not the shiny box it comes in.

I don't put that much thought into how much damage physical music production is doing to the world's resources. It still generates more money for the band than buying it off itunes, and plus: packaging is still going to be used for numerous other things that will kill the trees. So I would never go so far as to say i feel guilty for buying a CD.

See that's another reason why I see having physical copies as a bit of a waste: I'm not a collector! I don't think it's productive or healthy to become so attached to material possessions. There are some people out there who buy different versions of the same album just for something as trivial as a matrix code or a different design on the CD! To me, that's nuts. I listen to music for the music, not the shiny box it comes in.

Well, the tree-felling part was in response to the "inner guilt" you mentioned. Personally, I'd feel more guilt in supporting something that's going to have a negative effect on the environment unnecessarily much more than "cheating the band off money." If the digital download format is allowed to extend effectively in the long run, you could very well see bands making profits coz ultimately production cost would be less and a wider audience means wider scope for profits. Regarding packaging; well, again, the lesser the unnecessary wasteful production, the better. Less no. of dead trees. All happy, I suppose.

As for physical copies; agreed upon more or less. Admittedly, the whole downloading issue is far from easy, but I don't see in any way how it's not going to be a staple. Adaptation with the technology is inevitable.

I'm about to crack and pay the ten euro for it myself. They really have the tactic of driving you nuts with all the ads down to a tee. They ruin the flow of albums.

That's a pretty big loss alright. However it wasn't even available in Ireland (and probably lots of other countries) until just a few months ago, so I'd say there's quite a bit of room for expansion into new markets.

The thing with expansion is, I think they have to cover the costs of more people streaming more free tracks in new countries. I'm not sure, but that's how I understand it works: they pay the copyright holders for every stream, and they only get money back from subscriptions and a little from advertising. They're basically shouldering the losses and paying for customers' free music so they might attract more paying subscribers and eventually break even. That's nothing new, of course: many big businesses operate at a deficit locally to establish a foothold and create a brand. I don't think MacDonald's makes a profit in some countries at all. The difference is, Spotify doesn't seem to make a profit anywhere. So I can only hope more people subscribe and make it work. Would hate to lose all my playlists!

Re: cutting down trees. I don't know why people think it's bad for the environment. Taking care of your forest means cutting it down and planting new trees regularly. It's an ecological business. It's only a problem with some third world countries where no regulations stop the destruction of rain forests. I don't know where the paper for my CD covers comes from, but the lumber business is certainly a positive one that needs our support just as well.

Re: cutting down trees. I don't know why people think it's bad for the environment. Taking care of your forest means cutting it down and planting new trees regularly. It's an ecological business. It's only a problem with some third world countries where no regulations stop the destruction of rain forests. I don't know where the paper for my CD covers comes from, but the lumber business is certainly a positive one that needs our support just as well.

If your views are purely anthropocentric, then sure. Otherwise, there's a lot more than can be said. My interpretation wasn't really solely based on business terms, either, but oh well. I guess if this goes on it's going to steer offtopic. And therefore, I'll end it from my part.

If your views are purely anthropocentric, then sure. Otherwise, there's a lot more than can be said. My interpretation wasn't really solely based on business terms, either, but oh well. I guess if this goes on it's going to steer offtopic. And therefore, I'll end it from my part.

Not really. A healthy forest needs to be culled. If humans did not cut trees, they would grow until they were everywhere. Every forest would become old and support a specific type of ecosystem, until a forest fire clears it up. It's important to preserve some ancient forests untouched, but huge areas of rotting forest with nobody taking care of it or putting it to use is foolish. It doesn't help the ecosystem either; nature has no preference.

I think some foreign Greenpeace buffoon actually commented on how horrible it is that people cut trees in Finland. That only shows how detached the organization is from reality. I'm not sure she had ever tended a forest or knew anything about the profession. 78% of Finland's area is forest, and the amount of wood in our forests has only increased in the last few decades.

Any value system is necessarily anthropocentric; man is the measure of things, and no values exist in the world itself. That is a logical truism. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't care for the environment; it's the environment in which we find ourselves and our meanings, after all. But trees don't have feelings, Mother Nature doesn't care if you plant or cut trees, and animal populations aren't about to die out. An opinion that would be against cutting a tree simply for the sake of that tree would be some kind of pagan or New Age mysticism, personifying nature. I'm not sure if you subscribe to such views, but they don't hold much rational persuasive power. What even makes you so sure that an untouched, rotting, stagnant old forest is better and preferrable to "Nature" than a young, well-tended, growing forest? If there is true transcendent value in nature, apart from what humans project, how can you be so sure what it is? If you value trees themselves, shouldn't a tended forest be better (because there are more trees and more growth in one than in a natural forest)? Or if you value diversity, shouldn't you agree that having several types of forests is good?

This is indeed somewhat off-topic, but it's pretty relevant to whether or not album booklets and the all-the-more-common cardboard gatefolds are ethical. I suppose it depends on where that material comes from: rainforests are being decimated rather recklessly, and that's short-sighted. However, I'd like to hear your argument against forestry in the countries that actually do it like it's supposed to be done.

Even Wikipedia seems to know forestry is a positive thing for the environment:

Quote:The main goal of forestry is to create and implement systems that allows forests to continue a sustainable provision of environmental supplies and services. The challenge of forestry is to create systems that are socially accepted while sustaining the resource and any other resources that might be affected.

On that note, I would like to see more gatefold covers and less plastic garbage. They look nice, they feel good to the touch, and they help forests! Alkerdeel's Mordine was probably my favorite packaging last year.

Loading...

MechanisTAccount deleted

30.01.2013 - 15:01

MechanisTAccount deleted

Well, at least it's nice to know that you didn't feel it was not completely unrelated. I do know about forest management but my point was more of the "overcommercial zomzomzom fell a tree make a waffle" kinda argument, hehe. And well, I won't say I cannot agree with many of the things you brought out either. As for philosphical aspects; those are best left for another day. That'd derail the thread even more.